La Tarcoteca

La Tarcoteca

martes, 19 de marzo de 2019


The abrupt appearance of fascist, ultranationalist, racial separatist, and authoritarian movements throughout the world in the last five years—and their success in coming to power through “democratic” electoral processes—is truly terrifying. At no time since the 1930’s have we seen not only a comfort but a deep lust for authoritarianism in so many people: closed borders, immigration raids, direct and brutal violence against political opposition, flagrant displays of racism and male chauvinism, popular referendums towards national separatism, and an almost jubilant erosion and revocation of civil protections for minorities.

Multiple theories have arisen as to precisely why this is happening. Unfortunately, none of them suffice to explain the actual causes, only assure us that what has arisen throughout the world can be fought or stopped. In general, these theories usually label these fascist impulses as “reactionary,” meaning that they are conservative at their core and wish to turn back the clock on social progress or stop an inevitable flood of civil rights expansions.
For instance, most explanations of this rise of fascism assert that the Liberal Democracies of the world have finally reached a point where equality for racial minorities, for women, for people with variant gender and sexual expressions, or others who have been “locked out” of access to wealth and political power is finally obtainable. In this view, fascism is a “reaction” to this progress by those who will lose privileged access to wealth and power as others finally get theirs. Thus, increased violence against gays, or Black people, or women in these societies is their reaction to these changes, a brutal but futile attempt to claw back democratic “Progress.”
It’s no mistake that this is the dominant theory on fascism amongst leftists and liberals in the United States and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. We can easily see why this is the case: it allows the election of Trump in the US and the passage of the “Brexit” referendum in the UK to be described as sudden “interruptions” to what otherwise seemed progressive nations. In the US particularly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and many apparent expansions of Liberal Democratic rights (gay marriage, affordable health care, proposed paths to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, amongst many others) gave the sense that things were “getting better” and would continue to do so. Donald Trump’s election thus seemed particularly shocking to those who’d been convinced of this narrative, a sudden interruption or step backward in the steady march towards eventual equality.
So in this view, Trump (and Brexit), as well as the many increasing instances of street violence by nationalists and racists and explicit hatred for trans, queer, immigrant, and other vulnerable groups are all last-ditch efforts from people who have realized they were losing. These fascists then are counter-revolutionaries attempting to stop the slow but inevitable march of progress towards liberal utopia. They are people looking backwards towards an imagined past because they refuse to learn someone’s pronouns or not sexually-harass women. They’ve seen the writing on the wall, the prophetic end to patriarchy, white supremacy, and all the other systems which privileged them over all others, and they’re trying to stop their downfall.
This is a beautiful, comforting narrative. It offers hope to those directly suffering from such violence that things will once again be better and even more so. “We are winning,” it whispers to us, “this is just a temporary setback.” And thus we organize against fascism as we if are engineers attempting to put a train back on its tracks, to move our societies again in the direction they were heading in the first place. We treat these apparent interruptions as not so much an emergency but a temporary inconvenience. Once we’ve set things right again—by which is often meant “get a Democrat in office again”—we’ll have our rights and freedoms and security and can finally be on our way again towards the future destination of equality.



If this has been your view of fascism, I apologize for the rest of this essay. Yet I suspect you, as I have, possess a felt sense that the engineers don’t have the current “interruption” as under control as much as they suggest, that there is no regularly-scheduled programming to which we can return.
Fascism is the new normal.
The dominant view of fascism—that these explosions of nationalist and racist acts and political wins are mere “reactions”—relies on a highly-selective conception of the recent histories of Liberal Democracies such as the United States. This conception filters out the actual material conditions of our societies (that is, it does not look at access to wealth, stagnation of wages, accessibility of housing and other resources, nor the conditions of the environment itself) and instead narrates our lives according to what social rights we perceive ourselves to have.
To put this a simpler way, while a gay person can get married in the United States in 2019 but could not in the year 2000, that same gay person’s ability to support themselves (get housing, healthcare, eat, etc) has not gotten easier. In fact, in most places in the United States, especially for those working for minimum or low wages, their lives have gotten much harder despite receiving “rights” and “protections” from the government. The same is true for every other group that the dominant narrative claims fascists are “reacting” against.
Not convinced? Go ask a trans person, a Black mother, or undocumented immigrant friend how easy it was for them to pay their rent in the US in 2016, just before this supposed fascist “interruption” began. And if they’re old enough, ask them if it was really all that easier than it was in 2000.
Taking a longer view of history and refusing to ignore the material conditions which affect people reveals a different narrative than the one we’ve generally come to accept about fascism as interruption to progress. Looking at these conditions, over multiple nations and over a longer term, shows that the general state of Liberal Democracies has been a slow, creeping crisis. Wealth has become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people each year, while the greater portions of these societies struggle harder to survive, work longer hours, get themselves into deeper debt, live in increasingly dense and suffocating cities, and find themselves renting out parts of their lives through “sharing economy” apps or engaging in relentless “crowd-funding” social media campaigns to pay rent, buy groceries, pay for necessary surgeries and even to afford funerals for loved-ones.
Socially, however—sure. It appears things are (or at least were) getting better. Social Justice movements, #metoo, Black Lives Matter, and many other organic movements (all facilitated by capitalist social media) definitely have given us a sense that progress is happening or is at least possible. But none of these have actually changed the material conditions of life for the people the fascists are supposedly reacting against. We have gotten better at asking people’s pronouns and policing social media posts for oppressive language, but this has not improved material conditions for anyone.
This is not to say that the rights doled out by governments or won through cultural change are irrelevant or should be abandoned. I’m a gay immigrant married to his husband: the rights against which fascists are supposedly reacting are vital to my life, as they are to many others. So when I suggest that these rights are only “aesthetic changes,” I do not mean they are irrelevant or unimportant. However, they do not change the actual material conditions of my life, only my ability to be in certain places and with certain people. They do not make me any more able to survive in a capitalist system, nor feed myself or pay rent.

It is important to underline this problem because if all these current fascisms are supposedly reactions to an increase in rights, than fascists are merely acting like spoiled children, upset that they’ve been forced by their parents to allow another child a turn with their toys. While it’s comforting to infantilize opponents this way, there’s an unseen mediator that this conception doesn’t address: the state.


When the state appears in most theories about fascism, it’s seen as a passive actor. Like a parent attempting to intervene between siblings, our way of looking at the state’s role in the rise of fascism presumes it to be a neutral tool the fascists wish to seize for their own will. As with other aspects of this narrative, this view ignores the profound increase in police and surveillance powers that the governments of the world have enacted for the last several decades.
These increases have occurred as much (and sometimes more) under centrist, liberal, and even “leftist” governments as they have under conservative or right-wing governments, particularly in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany since 2000. For instance, the longest state of emergency in France was declared (and extended 6 times) by a socialist president, François Hollande. Gerhard Schröder in Germany and Tony Blair in the UK also implemented significant expansions on security and surveillance powers for their respective governments, and President Barack Obama in the United States not only failed to dismantle the massive power-grab implemented by the Patriot Act, but he expanded many of its internal and external policies ( including an increase in drone warfare and the legalization of “extra-judicial” killings of American citizens abroad).
We should note that these were all leaders generally seen as champions of civil rights. Both Hollande and Obama presided over governments that allowed same-sex marriage, for instance (while in the United Kingdom and Germany this was done during conservative governments). That is to say, that while the state appeared to be doling out freedoms, it was simultaneously taking away many more by accumulating surveillance and policing powers we usually associate with authoritarian regimes.
In fact, if we take this accumulation into account, we get a completely different picture of what has been occurring. The state which the fascists seem to want to seize is far from neutral. The governments of the world have become increasingly authoritarian and increasingly powerful, reducing the overall freedoms of the people they rule despite offering up a few new freedoms to select minorities.
Besides completely undermining the basis for the theory that fascism is a reaction to progress, this forces us to ask whether fascism is actually a “reaction” in the first place. That is, rather than being backwards and regressive, what if the demands for tougher controls on the movements of people (immigration laws, border walls, deportations, etc), the popular support for far-right political leaders, and the increase in racist, nationalist, and other identity-based violence is actually the true “progress?”
What if the pull towards the future isn’t one of equality but of increased inequality, of even more complex oppression and deeper subjugation of peoples?
At least for the previous twenty years, but arguably for the last forty, the general movement of governments and societies has been one of increased control, not of increased freedom. It has also been a movement towards increased concentration of wealth for the rich and increased debt and poverty for an ever-expanding base of the poor whose material conditions only get worse, never better.
More terrifyingly, the very resources upon which our existences rely have become increasingly scare. Catastrophic climate change isn’t stopping or even slowing—it’s accelerating. More species die each year than the previous, CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, disruptions to major weather patterns trigger increasing heat waves, storms, and floods: all this puts additional pressure upon the poor across the earth, creating food, water, and energy crises that threaten the stability of governments everywhere.


Therein, though, is the hint as to what is actually behind the increasing authoritarian trends, whether those be state-led or populist. Because fascism is a reaction after all, but not a reaction against an aesthetic increase in social rights for select minorities. Instead, it is a reaction to an emergency.
Fascism—by which I also mean authoritarianism—is a way of managing civilizations during emergencies. Laws against dissent or political opposition during war time, for example, are justified as necessary because the very existence of the government is under threat from foreign powers (real, or as in the cast of the “wars against terrorism,” mostly manufactured and imaginary). During both World Wars, the United States (and all other major governments involved in the war) implemented increased surveillance, incarcerated or interned entire people groups, and harshly prosecuted property crimes and other offenses by the poor. Similarly in the last two decades, authoritarian power-grabs in response to “terrorism” such as the Patriot Act in the United States were used to prosecute environmentalists, war-dissenters, and civil-rights activists, a practice that continues up to the present day.
So if this increasing trend towards authoritarianism throughout the world is a reaction to an emergency, we must ask ourselves what that emergency is. Here we need to drop all pretenses that our Liberal Democracies are marching towards some utopian future of equality, or that there is any real progress being made to better our material conditions. Instead, we are forced to look at those very material conditions themselves and realize that they actually cannot get better.
Several hundred years ago, the way most humans had lived (relatively unchanged for thousands of years) shifted abruptly with the birth of factories and the exploitation of coal and oil. This led to explosions in population growth accompanied by massive deforestation, desertification, and most of all an exponential growth in carbon dioxide expelled into the air. All of this was seen as “progress,” the factory was the future, and because the earth on which we live possesses a deep resiliency, few of the effects this destruction caused became evident until last century.
No one should be surprised that the modern-nation state and the birth of surveillance and policing technologies also occurred at the exact same time. Such an explosion of economic and population growth required new strategies for maintaining power against the poor, especially since they were promised liberation through the illusions of democracy.
But here we are now, having reached the limits of earth’s resiliency and the resources used to build our civilizations—especially oil. There are no other easily-available energy sources to maintain—let alone expand—modern society, and anyways the time to have transitioned to more sustainable methods was several decades ago. So now every people group in the world sees the certainty of impending scarcity and in some cases genocide through starvation, flooding, drought, or war.
Every government of the world is now facing the undeniable question: how do we hold on to power in the face of catastrophic climate change? China has already found its answer, through increased surveillance and management of its people through a “social credit” system. In that system, every individual will eventually be tracked according to social, financial, legal, and commercial data and scored accordingly, with a low score (including political dissent or jay-walking too often) barring you from international flights and economic assistance.
While easy to dismiss from an orientalist standpoint as a dystopian project that cannot happen in the “enlightened West,” we must remember that such a system doesn’t arise out of nothing, nor is it meant merely to punish. The purpose of the social credit system in China is to manage resource availability: people who do not conform to the system lose access to economic goods and mobility itself, and access is granted only to those who do conform.
Here we can see that China is responding to the same emergency (dwindling resources) to which Emmanuel Macron was responding when he implemented his highly unpopular diesel tax. This tax was born not from a mere desire to punish people but to avoid an impending petroleum crisis by discouraging people from driving. While the Gillets Jaunes protesters in France have many justifiable reasons to criticize Macron’s introduction of the “environmental measure,” the problem remains that France both continues to pump out absurd amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, and also faces potential fuel shortages in the next few years. These are far greater crises than an increase in diesel costs.
Similar problems are occurring everywhere. Brexit, for all its racist and nationalist rhetoric, was an understandable response for a nation finding its economic power dwindling. So too the election of Jair Bolsonoro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the United States: previous centre-left governments had failed to address any of the actual impending economic crises and instead relied on political chicanery and heavy doses of optimism to opiate the masses. Germany is also facing a similar situation, with its centre-right leader Angela Merkel barely holding on to power against threats from several proto-fascist parties.
The situation we are in can perhaps best be seen with Trump’s proposed border-wall between the United States and Mexico. As awful as Trump is and as racist as the wall will be, it’s too easy to forget the actual logic behind the thing. The point of the wall isn’t to keep people out now, it’s to keep out the millions of people fleeing drought and starvation due to catastrophic climate change later. It is not about a racist present, but about a fascist future.
With this lens we can also look at other changes in the way the United States has been governed before the current president and see that there’s been no interruption at all, only a continuation. President Obama, for all his charming aesthetics of progress, continued and expanded military occupations in the Middle East while increasing the militarization of police within the United States. The answer as to why someone supposedly so committed to equality would do such a thing should now be obvious: the military actions were necessary to ensure the United States had continued access to oil reserves, and the militarization of police was to ensure the government could withstand internal challenges to its sovereignty…including by poor Black people.


By now perhaps you’re wondering why such a longer view isn’t included in many of the dominant theories about fascism. In fact, such a view might also strike you as a little too apologetic for these authoritarian impulses. To both of these points I can only answer by invoking the legacy of two anti-fascist thinkers from the middle of last century, Georges Bataille and Walter Benjamin.
Georges Bataille was a French artist and writer who lived through the Nazi occupation of France. Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish historian and writer who fled through France into Spain, where he died (by suicide, or potentially by assassination). They were also friends, sharing a passion for mysticism and other heretical ideas that caused them both to be accused of fascism themselves.
Bataille’s primary work on the subject, The Psychological Structure of Fascism, is almost never quoted in discourse around fascism. This is unfortunate, but also unsurprising: besides being a difficult text, Bataille argues uncomfortably that fascism is a revolutionary force, one that seeks to establish order in times of political crisis in order to perpetuate the order. That is, for Bataille, fascism is a way of renewing a society, of keeping it going, uniting it and resurrecting it so it can progress into the future. From Bataille’s view, Trump’s slogan “Make American Great Again” is not so much about the real past as it about a utopian future. The rise of fascist movements now can also be seen not as attempts to return to a mythic past but to create unity to survive a tumultuous future.
Because of the way he rejected the myth of utopian socialist “progress,” Bataille’s ideas were labeled dangerous and even sympathetic to fascism by others. So, too, were the ideas of his friend Walter Benjamin, who had the unfortunate distinction of being one of the few men of that time wanted dead by both Stalinists and Nazis for his ideas.
For Benjamin, the rise of fascism was exactly the pull towards the future which I suggest we be fearful of. Highly critical of the way that industrialization had changed our conception of reality (for example, through the mechanical reproduction of art) and how it turned politics into aesthetic, Benjamin argued that “progress” was not some great destination towards which we must valiantly march, but a terrible destination over which we had no control. In his remarks about a painting in his possession (hidden from the Nazis on his behalf by Bataille), he wrote:
A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.
And in a footnote in that same work, he outlines a theory of revolution as anti-future:
“Marx said that revolutions are the locomotive of world history. But perhaps things are very different. It may be that revolutions are the act by which the human race traveling in the train applies the emergency brake.”
For both Benjamin and Bataille, then, fascism was not a reactionary impulse, nor an attempt by those losing power to regain it. Instead, fascism is the inevitable future of civilizations built upon capitalist exploitation of people and the earth, the final point of “progress” for industrial society. And though neither were nearly as aware of how dire the situation in the world is now, their words feel much more prophetic—and true—than the comforting yet false idea that fascism is merely reaction to social progress.
Their ideas point to an awful truth: it is no co-incidence that the authoritarian impulses of governments and people are exploding around us at the very same time that catastrophic climate change has begun manifesting itself. In fact, the racist, nationalist, and fascist movements that arise everywhere now are a response to the impending resource crises caused by that climate change.
Though this is not the future we were promised nor the progress we were hoping for, this was always the only future that was ever possible for our industrialized civilizations.
But this doesn’t mean this is the only future possible for humanity or the earth. There were other futures before, other futures still—but only for different kinds of societies, ones not dependent upon dwindling resources for their perpetual growth. It has always been possible to live without petroleum and coal, without deforestation and extinctions, without international finance capital and instant digital commerce, without immigration laws and border walls, without corporate and state surveillance and militarized police.
To get to such a future, though, we need to pull the emergency brake on this future first. Then we can do the work of remembering how to survive without all these things, the way humans have done for thousands and thousands of years. While the future of our current civilization is fascist, our past is full of other futures, other hopes, and other ways of being with each other. It’s to this past we must look, even as the wreckage of history piles up. We must resist the storm of false “progress,” awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed.

jueves, 7 de marzo de 2019

Open Letter to Extinction Rebellion – Green Anti-Capitalist Front

Thanks to the London Anarchist Federation comrades for sending this Manifesto regarding a new ecologist and internationalist fighting front, Green Anti-Capitalist Front – Climate Struggle Is Class Struggle. Below its manifesto post.

We will not extint without fight!

Follow on Twitter (@FrontGreen) and Facebook.


Open Letter:


Health to the fighters! PHkl/tctca
Source - Open Letter to Extinction Rebellion – Green Anti-Capitalist Front 1.3.2019

As climate catastrophe draws near, we are impressed and encouraged by the movement that Extinction Rebellion is building. This mobilisation has reinvigorated environmental activism at a time when we most need it. XR has been bold in its aims when much of the established movement has been cynical, and has managed to tap into a broader sense of alarm over environmental degradation, and mobilised many people not previously involved. XR has grown at a speed that many people would have thought impossible before we saw it happen. XR has also been far more radical in this broad appeal than many people would have thought, pursuing a strategy built around both local direct action while maintaining an international orientation. We cannot overstate the overwhelmingly positive effect that XR is having on environmental politics.

Those of us already involved in various radical and green movements have been attending XR meetings and actions and found them deeply inspiring. However, at the same time we also have doubts about some of the tactics that XR has adopted in its pursuit of a green future, and we have discussed how we should bridge the differences between our views and those of XR. We do not want to undermine the important work that XR is doing, but we also feel that there is a conversation that needs to be had about some of XR’s tactics.

While we hope that these tactics do work, we are dubious that they will be enough. We fear that the government will be less willing to negotiate in good faith and more willing to use violent repression against a truly disruptive campaign than is assumed. Capitalism systematically incentivises environmental destruction, and we worry that the costs of any government initiative to combat climate change will fall on the poor and powerless unless a clear anti-capitalist stance is articulated. We will never be free from the spectre of environmental crisis while the profit of the few is put above the lives of everyone else.

Against the existential threat of human extinction hanging over us all, cooperation is our greatest strength. We feel that a separate organisation that works alongside XR while allowing for a greater diversity of tactics is the most honest way to do this. We want to support XR with a parallel mobilisation that has a greater focus on the capitalist roots of climate catastrophe.

We believe these actions can be mutually supportive and bring a zero emissions world closer to reality. See you on the streets.

lunes, 4 de febrero de 2019

Moscow, Russia: New Wave of Brutal Interrogations and Torture of Anarchist Comrades — Mpalothia

Source - Moscow, Russia: New Wave of Brutal Interrogations and Torture of Anarchist Comrades — Mpalothia 3.2.2019

03.02.19: On February 1, in Moscow, Russian FSB has raided several flats and arrested 10 people under ‘conspiracy charges’. All of them were later released, after all-day interrogations and physical tortures, except one person, Azat Miftahov. He is accused of ‘fabricating explosives’ and being a member of a ‘radical anarchist organization Narodnaya Samooborona’ (Peoples’ Self-Defense). This organization has become, during last year, the main target of police repressions in Russia : several members of this group were arrested, tortured or threatened. Some of the members had to leave the country under a risk of long prison terms and tortures.

One of the arrested anarchists, Daniil Galkin, has reported about tortures. After his arrest, during 2-3 hours he was beaten up and tortured with electric shocks in the police car. Under torture, Galkin was forced to say that Azat Miftahov, was anarcho-communist and took part in anarchist actions. Galkin was forced to give an interview that was compromising anarchists, to a federal TV-channel ‘First channel’ (Perviy Canal), and promise to ‘collaborate with the police by providing information about anarchist actions’.

In the police station of Balashiha, Moscow region, Galkin saw Azat: he was threatened by the FSB officers, and his arms were tied. According to Galkin, Azat ‘did not look like a human being’ because of tortures. He also said he heard screams of one of the arrested women activists, who was kept in the room next to his. He also heard that one of the arrested anarchists cut his veins and took some pills in order to avoid further tortures and thus avoid giving any information about other comrades. According to other witnesses and journalists, this person is Azat Miftahov.
Azat was kept in detention in that police station until late in the night, he was refused to see his lawyer. At night he was guided out of the police station, right in front of his lawyer who had been waiting for him, and taken in an unknown direction. We do not know anything about his actual location, as for February 2, 18:00. We think he’s still tortured and forced to give information about his comrades and himself.

We ask for solidarity actions, informational and financial support.

For reminder: currently in Russia (and the recently annexed territories, such as Crimea) there are several penal cases against anarchists under ‘terrorist’ charges. Here are some of them: the ‘Network’ case, the case against anarchist Vyatcheslav Lukichev, the case against anarchist Kirill Kuzminkin, the case against Crimean anarchist Evgeniy Karakashev.

Financial support for Russian anarchists:


International wire transfer :

Account number : 40817810238050715588

Please indicate ‘solidarity donation’ when making your transfer.

(source, thanks to Antifascist Action Brisbane for bringing this to our attention!)

martes, 20 de noviembre de 2018

Spanish Civil War Calendar - 2019 - Calendario de la Guerra Civil Española

Source - Spanish Republican Calendar - 2019 - Calendario Republicano october 2018 Andrei Kelner
HERE Video promo

Spanish Civil War - The fight never to be forgotten! 2019 Calendar mixing old posters with contemporary artists works

Con el aniversario de la tragedia que rodea el fin de la guerra civil...

On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the 1939 infamous conclusion of the Spanish Civil War, please support us in bringing some of the most iconic republican posters back into the hands of art and freedom lovers in a beautiful, timeless calendar, contextualized with a parallel set of contemporary art works.

Our objective is to cover your wall with powerful women figures posters and their vibrant messages. And to present, on the same page, some contemporary art, from a handful of engaged, international young artists.

From left to right, here below is what happened to us:
First we fell in love with this vintage calendar template,
Then we discovered all sorts of powerful women republican posters,
Then we invited a dozen contemporary artists to collaborate,
And finally we have set up a new calendar, all the art into one place.

How we came about this project

The obvious WHY of this 2019 Calendar project is the 80th shameful anniversary of the 1939 closure of the Spanish Civil War, won by Franco's fascist traitors.

The 2nd motivation is that I want to pay tribute to the more than 500 volunteers from my old country of birth – Romania - (one of them a late great uncle). Many of them never returned, fighting and dying along the International Brigades.

3rd reason is the strong urge to expose our daughters and their young friends to some powerful female role models. And Gd knows, we, as a society, today, we all really need to reinforce and support these women figures. Therefore the 12 pages of the calendar are populated with some strong women figures.

What is more important is that some of the money raised will reward JACA (, a special organization, hosting the graphic works of a number of our collaborators.They accepted to render the old Spanish Civil War message of fighting the odds in front of adversity, but from a more contemporaneous angle.

Why we can do it

Our 2019 Republican Calendar Project is done with a modest budget and a small infrastructure (there are just two of us, in Montreal, and Bergamo). It is done under our previous publishing press umbrella - Bookata (

We exist to print, promote, and preserve works of literary vision, to foster a climate of cultural preservation, and to disseminate books in a way that benefits the arts and freedoms. We focus on reviving content that have gone out of favor or out of print, publishing works from around the world, and, with this project in particular, championing the work of young female artists.

I want to give special thanks to Dario Carta, our Italian graphic designer partner, and his tireless energy in bringing this project to life. He's also a visual artist whose current progressively engaged projects can be found here (

One of Dario poster, Spain-inspired

The support and art contributions of so many young, engaged artists from around the world are also a proof / sign of the quality and solidity of the project. Here below their names and links to their powerful portfolios:

One of the Spanish contribution, Manuel Hiojosa

Our 12-Month 2019 Calendars are vertical 8.5 x 11" when closed, and 8.5" x 22" when opened. We print on partially recycled glossy paper.

The calendar is still in the design phase and your feedback is welcome. Any other ideas we can incorporate? If your suggestions are too complex, we will incorporate them in a next iteration (2020).

Current page design...we are still open for feedback and changes

How you can Help?

Every dollar counts; whether you can give $5 or $1.500. Your contribution of any size will help us produce this work of art and history, as well as place it into the wall of freedom loving citizens as well as onto the walls of institutions, collectives, etc.

Remember, if the project isn't fully funded during our Kickstarter campaign, you won't be charged a dime (and, unfortunately, the calendar won't be published). You can always go back and change or cancel your reward level before the campaign ends. The opposite may also happen - to be blessed with an over-funding situation.

Here's more info about how that works if you're not familiar with Kickstarter:

Not in a position to donate? Please know that word of mouth is instrumental in raising awarness and funding. Each person who shares this link bellow will contribute greatly to the making of our republican calendar.

...and so on, and so on...up to the whole palette of 24 illustrations (12 vintage and 12 contemporary ones).
Square & Vertical Options


All of the posters presented in this project were carefully selected, for free reusing allowed by "fair use", from one of the following collection:
Library of Congress, all posters are part of the Public Domain Server
UC San Diego Library, Southworth Spanish Civil War Collection, Spanish Civil War Posters
NYU, Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archive, Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives Collection (initially deposited with Brandeis University) & Tamiment Library Poster Collection
Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte, Centro Documental de la Memoria Histórica - Los carteles de la guerra civil española (Spain)
Archivo de la Fundación Pablo Iglesias, Fondo de carteles, Carteles de la guerra civil (1936-1939),
Archives of City / Archives de Villeurbanne /

The downloaded posters presented in this project were electronically reworked by our team: archiving, scanning, editing, resizing, enhancing, cleaning and clearing of any digital imperfection. As such they are available from our website under CC Creative Commons licenses.

Most of the vintage posters provide no explicit authorship. Whenever possible, the creator name is clearly mentioned. From a long list of artists (see a complete list below), we have retained a handful of works, representing powerful women figures. When the artist name is unknown, we have tried to highlight the printer house name or, whenever possible, the organization or ministry/department sponsoring the art (see list below).

Artists : Mauricio Amster, José Ballester, José Bardasano, José Briones Martinez, José Calandin , Enric Clusellas, José Luis Espert, Carles Fontseré, Hugo Gellert, Lorenzo Goñi, Aleix Hinsberger, Jaime Juez , Emeterio Melendreras, Gomez Nicome , Ricard Obiols, Ramón Puyol, Josep Renau, Vicente Vila Gimeno.

Sponsors / Funders / Departments / Organizations: Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, (Spain) F.A.I. (Spain) Unión General de Trabajadores de España (Spain) Ministerio de Instrucción Pública y Sanidad (Spain) Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias (Spain) Sindicato Profesionales Bellas Artes (Spain) Juventudes Libertarias (Spain) Socorro Rojo de España (Spain) Front Popular de Catalunya / Comissariat de Propaganda, Catalonia (Spain) Junta Delegada de Defensa de Madrid (Spain)

For more information, please write to us or contact one of the links:
Twitter: @repcalendar2019
Instagram: @republicancalendar2019


This project is, of course, scalable. The model below is for 100 calendars. We hope to have enough interest for 1000s.

Risk and Callenges

This is a first project...We cannot foresee major problems but printing and / or shipping hiccups can happen....
Printing will be done here, in Montreal, for a better quality control.
Shipping will be done....well, by myself, with the help of my daughter and some of her strong girlfriends.

Más información sobre el concepto de responsabilidad en Kickstarter

martes, 9 de octubre de 2018

The Call of Anarchism: An Identity made in Practice

I believe that if those who feel called upon to act as guardians of the anarchist movement once realized how little it is in need of their guardianship, what a trifle each individual contribution is, even theirs, they would be content to fight the battle with the enemy as it develops (not as they preconceive it ought to develop); and not think it necessary to turn about and add their stripes to those who will be quite sufficiently beaten by the State, merely because such have not waged war as per the cold-blood, wisdom and experience of the gray heads of others.
Voltairine de Cleyre, Events Are the True Schoolmasters

Ruymán Rodríguez, anarchist associated with the Federación de anarquistas Gran Canaria(FAGC), has for over a number of years defended an anarchism in the streets, against mere ideological posturing and/or academic self-stimulation.  From his rich experience with the FAGC, created in the wake of the 15th of May movement (15M) in spain, he has consistently sought to think through the theory and practice of anarchism.
In the essay that we share below, in translation, Rodríguez champions an anarchism defined in practice.  But contrary to those who would today give second place to any “anarchist” identity, he contends that it is in this practice where the identity must be affirmed.  The essay is not an apology for blind and hyper-activism, while remaining silent over who one is politically, for fear of frightening others.  It is rather the defense of anarchist practice as anarchist.
What differences we have with Rodríguez, we have stated before.  In this instance, and leaving aside “philosophising”, as he refers to it, we have one question, or doubt.
Rodríguez writes below:
People want solutions to the problems that are overwhelming them, and when those solutions are achieved with anarchist weapons, those are the weapons strapped on the waist or held between the teeth, without caring for other considerations. When your social work is efficient and offers positive results, people associate your anarchism with immediacy and realism. That is the basis of everything.
Anarchism, in any guise (and we defend no particular variety), cannot ignore what used to be called the “social question”: issues of poverty, employment, housing, food and the like.  More, and with Rodríguez, an anarchism that fails to address the needs of people is condemned to die.  But what our needs are, and how they should be met, are eminently political and ethical questions that cannot be addressed exclusively at the level of “needs”, but only at the level of “ideas” (this dualism is itself false).  And should anarchism be pressed into choosing between practice or theory (as Rodríguez forces on occasion), then there is a real danger of appropriation: not intellectual or cultural, in this instance (e.g., anarchism’s expansion in the academy), but political, for State or corporate authorities may pretend to respond to “needs” more “successfully”.
Anarchism is not a better way to address needs; it is the freedom to define and create needs, with others, where and when desired.
(For other writings by Rodríguez in English, click here).
Anarchist Identity
Ruymán Rodríguez (a las barricadas, 26/02/2018)
In considering oneself an anarchist, I have never understood this as an identity. For me, collective identities always tend to constrict us in sealed compartments, in closed, quantifiable, easily identifiable and assimilable categories. I respect all of them, as long as they do not configure themselves in opposition to other identities that are considered to be inferior. Yet in my opinion, the identity that truly belongs and defines us is the individual one, that which we develop even if we had been raised in the dark and on a desert island. It is true that identity is shaped by the environment, sometimes absorbing it and sometimes repelling it (and often a little of each), but I am interested in knowing how much of what we are survives in contact with the environment. I have always thought, certainly erroneously in the opinion of philosophers and sociologists, that what we really are is what remains after this contact with the environment. What the environment adds to us is our social identity; what the environment can not change, what resists its contact, that is what we are. Of course for many this is individualistic romanticism, but it is not my intention to philosophise. Suffice it to say that for me what defines a person is their individual identity, above the cultural, ethnic, generic, etc., identities, that have been imposed or that one has had to choose, from a limited number of options. Sometimes these identities, such as political identites, are not neutral, and significantly mark how the person is (for example, an authoritarian political identity), others are charged with serial privileges (such as the male generic identity) and we must declare ourselves against or in favor of them, and this also defines us as individuals. But in general, when we are simply limited to being something circumstantial, something that we have not chosen, that others chose in our cradle for us (national or religious identities), then all of them can be equally lethal. I have said before and it always sounds just as hard, but I like to insist: all cultures are the same, because they can all be equally bad. In short, group identities do not help me to define people, their individual identity does. For what remains, I do as Jesús Lizano did and “I see mammals” only.(1)
For me to be an anarchist is a sensitivity, a way of understanding life and social relations that involves a real practice and a proposal of an alternative life to that which exists. It is a sensitivity that existed before it was given this name and that will exist after it has been forgotten. Anarchist manifestations precede the label, they predate the Greek coining of the word(2) and a Frenchman calling himself this in a provocative gesture.(3) The name of anarchist is assumed because it gathers together all that this sensitivity implies, but throughout history there have been many and varied nouns that have tried to define the same thing. The one that corresponds to the contemporary age is this one, there is no more. It is possible that now, in not linking it to an ideological or scientific concept, someone enters the door, asks for my anarchist card to tear it up in my face. But what I say is nothing new or original and many before me have so understood anarchy and anarchism. For Malatesta: “Anarchism is an individual and social way of life to be carried out for the greatest good of all, and not a system, nor a science, nor a philosophy”.(4) Rocker explained the matter further:
I am an anarchist, not because I believe in a future millennium where the social, material and cultural conditions will be absolutely perfect and will not need any further improvement. This is impossible, since the human being her/himself is not perfect and therefore can not engender anything absolutely perfect. But I believe in a constant process of improvement, that never ends and can only prosper in the best way under the most free possibilities of social life imaginable. The fight against all tutelage, against all dogma, whether it is a tutelage of institutions or ideas, is for me the essential content of libertarian socialism. The freest idea is exposed also to this danger, when it becomes dogma and is no longer open to any capacity for inner development. […] Anarchism is not a closed system of ideas, but an interpretation of thought that is in constant circulation, that can not be oppressed in a fixed framework, if one does not want to renounce it.(5)
Anarchism has been for many, who have been able to explain it better than me, an anti-absolute, a special and concrete sensitivity to real problems, that has demanded in turn a specific way of confronting them: practical anti-authoritarianism. It is logical that if this is anarchism, then the anarchist, rather than being tied to preconceived and uniform identities, should correspond to the above.
It is true that anarchism does arise as an identity problem on many occasions. I have already had the occasion to comment on this in several texts. There are those who need to assume a prefabricated identity that they believe will give them prestige among a more or less broad group of affinities. Thus, truly ridiculous phenotypes are produced: the anti-authoritarian who defends with fanaticism the intellectual authority of this or that master; the iconoclast who keeps his libertarian relic, in the form of a flag or symbol, next to the heart; the heretic that heads the “congregation of the doctrine for the faith” in pursuit of the libertarian dogma. Aberrations of this kind are everywhere: anti-capitalist speculators, misogynist feminist allies, believing atheists and ignorant intellectuals. There are also anarchists who are anarchists in an identitarian way, but for me, with all due respect, this is a very poor way of being an anarchist, just as considering oneself an Aryan is a very poor way of being a human.
Far from any aporias, I believe that the anarchist sensibility is of vital importance when it comes to managing our own lives and social conflicts and social inequalities. A life without hierarchies and where our survival is guaranteed by relationships of mutual aid is more necessary than ever. Although most anarchists can agree on this, some comrades have raised a debate that could be summarized as follows: should this sensitivity continue to receive the name of “anarchist”? Although the question seems merely formal and not substantive, the reality is that the implications, by their motivations and consequences, go beyond any nominal issue.
Let’s start by clarifying that this debate is not new. Ricardo Flores Magón already proposed more than a century ago: “Only the anarchists will know that we are anarchists and we will advise them not to call themselves so as not to frighten the imbeciles”.(6) Several voices in the early twentieth century in Spain proposed the use of the term “libertarian socialism” instead of “anarchism” to avoid the negative connotations of this latter.(7) And in the last decades, the very term “libertarian” has become a euphemism for anarchist, when it has not served to clarify that one is an anarchist but in a light, decaffeinated, non-flammable way. In fact, the origin of the word has nothing to do with the search for a kind and sweetened noun to define anti-authoritarianism. The word was coined by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque who thus titled his newspaper (Le Libertaire, 1858-1861) and who had already used it in 1857 in an open letter directed against Proudhon, in which he accused him of being “liberal and not libertarian “for his machismo”.(8) The term was rescued by Sébastien Faure in the face of the anti-anarchist laws (known as “perverse laws”) approved in France in 1893 that expressly prohibited anarchist propaganda and the inclusion of the word in any apologetic text. Thus he gave life in 1895 to his newspaper Le Libertaire and so popularised a word that had been forgotten for almost 30 years. The term was used as a synonym for an anarchist when the latter term could not be used, if the legal consequences were to be avoided. However, it did not necessarily signify an adjustment in commitment or self-affirmation. It is with the passing of the years, with social expressions and persons that did not declare themselves to be anarchists, but still opposed to authoritarianism, that the term begins to be so defined. And it is with the passing of the years, when those who are not comfortable with a name that they take as aggressive or unattractive, that some begin to use the term “libertarian”.
This attitude has sought to justify itself on the grounds of the bad press of the word “anarchist”, given to it especially after the wave of violent attacks and assassinations of the 1890s. It is true that the word has been tinged with negative connotations, but this arose long before the “propagandists by the deed” abruptly broke onto the stage of history. During the French Revolution, the term anarchiste was used in a pejorative way to accuse radical political opponents, supporters of the “equalisation of fortunes” and the most active sans-culottes.(9) It would be painstaking and unnecessary to reproduce all the fragments of the history of philosophy in which the term anarchy or anarchist, from Plato(10) to Bentham(11), has been anathematised. Even the first anarchist classics, from Godwin(12) to Proudhon(13) himself (who used the word indistinctly), were affected and used the term negatively. In conclusion, the name was not originally cursed for what the anarchists who employed it did or did not do; there has always been a fear of the term and this can not but follow, in a world organised under order and command, its etymological meaning: absence of leaders. I do not need to dwell on this because anarchists have for centuries tried to explain the paradox of linking anarchy and chaos, authority and order. The fear of horizontalism, autonomy, the deregulation of everyday life, the abolition of private property without subterfuge, is inherent to a world whose functioning is based on some being above and others below. It is thereby logical that any attempt to alter this state of affairs be considered a threat. In fact, in all of the examples I have just mentioned, from Plato to Bentham and from these to the most conservative factions of the French Revolution, the criticism of anarchy and its supposed propagators is not based so much on the fear of absolute freedom as on in the fear of egalitarianism that entails the absence of formal authority. For those cited, anarchy would suppose an inadmissible seismic equalising that would undermine the social hierarchy, put an end to the “natural” superiority of some individuals over others and lead us to chaos. The anarchist, obviously, could not be more unattractive.
The word anarchist, therefore, must be logically and unfailingly negative in a society where the powerful have a monopoly on discourse, where the taboo of authority is rarely publicly questioned, where everything keeps turning because neither the privileges of some nor the duties of others are changed. What the anarchists have done with that name can help more or less to give ammunition to the enemy, but in no way conditions the connotations of the word. Starting from this, we have to understand that when the first people who consciously went by this name arise, that they know perfectly well what they are doing. They are not taking a vague word that will be stained with use; they are taking an insult, a pejorative epithet, a political disqualification, and they are claiming it. It is an act of provocation, of giving prestige to the tainted, of turning against the established. And provocation, conscious and strategic, is still necessary. This is what most of the repressed and marginalised collectives and people have done when they have turned their accusations against their accusers: black, whore, queer, pariah, have been darts that the oppressed have picked up from the ground to return to their accusers. And the occasions have not been few when they have hit the target of wounded pride.
Leaving behind this historical digression, which I hope has been of some use, we are going to delve into what interests me above all in most issues: its practical dimension. Being an anarchist, as a fetishistic, sectarian identity, as a masturbatory activity, is a hindrance. The anarchism of these anarchists is one I have always criticised: one that lectures to the supposedly illiterate masses, in which the anarchist believes that the absolute truth was revealed to her/him by some dusty book, one that imagines that s/he can give lessons of moral superiority, one which thinks that s/he can not learn anything from people who walk and who are without a definite ideology, the anarchist who does not work because moving stains and reality pushes to contradictions. But the anarchist sensibility, the way of defining an anarchist by what s/he feels, lives, proposes and, above all, does, should s/he stop bearing that name? The argument in favor of abandoning the term goes on to say that it is a very unpopular name, that it creates a distinction between the anarchist and the rest of the people, that it is easier to introduce our practices in social struggles if we leave it in our pocket and that it is in itself a worn, obsolete designation. I do not agree, I have never agreed, with any of these arguments.
Firstly, I have already clarified that the unpopularity of this term comes from its own meaning and from the ability of the powerful to exercise semantic hegemony over a word that is a challenge for them in itself, especially if it were to materialise as a majority option. But regardless of this, we must start from something that is as terrible as it is true: not everything popular is correct. It is one thing to focus the message in a way that resonates with people, to find the best way to express and present it, to stop believing that everything we propose is infallible, that it is the people who have to convert to our creed, and to begin for once to be aware that it is our proposal that has to give an effective response to the most immediate needs of the people. And it is a very different thing altogether to think that our discourse must follow the strategy of demagogy and adapt to what is generally accepted. Our discourse must be realistic, verifiable in the facts, but that does not imply that it is not provocative, that it must necessarily be comfortable and that it must be accepted without breaking some initial resistance. To think otherwise is to open the door to Machiavellianism, to lack of integrity, to say what people want to hear even if it is not what they need to hear. Letting ourselves be carried away by this raises a dangerous antecedent: why not take on a racist discourse in order to introduce ourselves to those working class neighborhoods where propaganda against immigration has taken hold? Why not accept a macho argument if we want to create a union in a workplace where you breathe testosterone? Why not support animal abuse in exchange for befriending kids who like dogfighting? Why not forget to question private property and capitalism to reach the crowds that flood shopping centers and whose leisure is consumption? These are rhetorical questions, but they exemplify very well the danger of lowering the intensity of discourse in pursuit of marketing. The end never justifies the means. To let ourselves be dragged in the opposite direction will turn us into some kind of great publicity experts in marketing, but we will be useless as agents of social transformation. When the smoke dissipates, we will not have anything to offer because we will have given up everything to be popular.
Martin Luther King stated the matter very well when he said:
On some positions cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. (14)
There are times when it is necessary to do the right thing even if initially it is not popular. Feminism, for example, has been a movement, a struggle and very unpopular, for many years. In fact, it continues to be in many significant environments, despite the efforts of women to not give up space or conquests. Should feminists give themselves another more popular, more acceptable name, so that men do not feel their privileges to be threatened or their male pride offended? No. What they do is quite the opposite: the more uncomfortable the name, the more forcefully they claim it, they dispute the hegemony of meanings of those who control the language and do not allow others to decide how they should be called. Thanks to this vindication, there are many women who come to approach a name that does not need to adapt to susceptible sensibilities and does not renounce being what it is. It is still ceaselessly repeated that to be a feminist is as bad as to be a machista, that they are extremes that touch each other, that there is no need to be one or the other. If feminists were to renounce the name, they would lose a battle that goes beyond any formal consideration, they would justify those who denigrate them and hand over to their opponents, exclusive control over the narrative. The same applies to anarchists or any other demonised group and/or demand.
On the other hand, there is the issue of honesty. I remember the beginning of 15M [the 15 of May movement of 2011] in Las Palmas of the Gran Canaria. Initially we were four anarchists who erupted into a quiet camp with leaflets that cried out against the elections or the possibility that parties demobilise the movement. The poor university students who then had the leading voice did not have much of an idea of what anarchism was, and those who knew of it, did not have the most favourable views regarding it. On the first day, an assembly was held to throw us out. Today I remember it with a big smile. That experience was enough to stir things up, people with more political experience or with more empathy towards the persecuted defended us, our adversaries would rethink their supposed pluralism and their democratic convictions and the majority would ask “what the fuck is this anarchy about?” In the end, the results were surprising: many people stopped judging us by their preconceived ideas and began to judge us by our actions; a few days later, anarchists began to emerge from hiding, everyone was or had been an anarchist but nobody dared to say it until we started the commotion; unpoliticised people began to take an interest in our ideas, to debate and to organise; many declared themselves anarchists without being previously (a group of 4 isolated anarchists became a group of 20, not counting supporters, with the ability to call demonstrations on their own); in a public square, anarchism was spoken of, as perhaps it had not been done in the Gran Canaria since the 1930s of the last century; black flags began to be an identifiable symbol for people (to think that the majority could speak of “mourning for democracy” [this is quite true], that began to appear on posters and statements, as a call to attract libertarians); the anarchists gave workshops or were involved in the commissions and in the resolution of conflicts; there were well-attended assemblies in which, without proposing it and to my surprise, the libertarians were the majority; and so, in a few months, the FAGC was born. There was another important factor: the anarchists never hid the fact that they were anarchists, and rigthly or wrongly (I still think it was correct), we decided not to interfere in the assembly decisions collectively (there were no previous agreements on any common position in the voting) so as to preserve the autonomy of the movement. Other groups, on the contrary, especially those fishing politically, tried to manipulate the assemblies quite clearly, vetoing proposals and votes, or promoting votes in series, with strategic compulsive applause. In the end people could perfectly identify if the Humanist Party, DRY [Democracia Real Ya!], or whatever, was behind a proposal. The most curious thing is that many of the members of the different collectives or political parties did not openly identify as such, they mobilised under collective slogans, but without making explicit their links or affiliations. This generated some suspicion and animosity among many of the assembled. Is that the tactic that anarchism should follow, that of parachuting and infiltrating? I’ve always thought not. We do not have to be naive. When we declared ourselves to be anarchists, the people from political parties, those who were there to make personal gains, aspiring journalists, those who were tied to institutions or those who sought to turn 15M into a party, they never stopped attacking us and trying to block or even sabotage any initiative launched by the anarchists. People can be influenced and manipulated, but not everyone and not all of the time. If the boycott of political parties could work when demonstrations without flags were called, and when they appeared, they were booed or taken down, these same people who protested were asking us for advice on what to do in case of arrest and celebrated with us when we blocked evictions with human walls, and when we solved the internal problems of coexistence in the encampment without resorting to the police, or when we resisted with our bodies the eviction of the Plaza de San Telmo. Finally, these same people, regardless of the fear that politicians tried to instill against us, approved by majority, without any orientation other than common sense, the proposal for the organisation of 15M that was based on the libertarian principles, laid out by a libertarian.(15) Discovering that the anarchists could not only stir things up, but also build, propose and reason, opened the eyes of many people, regardless of the weight of violent legends and the decades of television news, which had shaped their judgments. Based on close contact with us, they stopped evaluating us by what they had heard and began to value us for our activity.
Is it better to save all this and not have to break down initial prejudices? I do not think so. The more we hide that we are anarchists, the more those prejudices will fester. People are not stupid and as soon as they begin to link our proposals with certain ideological currents they will begin to define us and may feel cheated. The contact will have already brought down the prejudice, but not necessarily the suspicion before a group of people who need to watch out for, as if ashamed of it, what underlies proposals that speak of mutual aid, action without intermediaries, no leaders, staying independent of parties and institutions. On the other hand, that tension that I have described in the previous paragraph is necessary. It is important to remove the hornet’s nest, that people face their fears and preconceived ideas, that they have to question what they have been taught and deconstruct what they have learned. Not every provocation is gratuitous and foolish; there are those that are well reasoned and that have strategic purposes. In any case, we deceive ourselves: the important thing is what we do, that is what will condition the opinion that people have about us, about our ideas and about how we define ourselves.
The essential thing is that anarchist practices abandon their isolated spaces and that their discourse turn its back on hyper-rhetoric. Mutual aid must be seen on the ground and in the struggle against evictions; illegality must stop being a fantasy and must be practiced on the picket lines and in the socialisation of housing; direct action should be used when organizing with neighbors, workers, the unemployed, the indigent and the persecuted. And for this, it is not necessary to stop defining oneself as anarchists; quite the opposite. People are underestimated when we take their rejection for granted. Many neighbors pass over the term, or do not know it or do not care. Those who a priori are against it, offer a magnificent opportunity to debate, to confront their beliefs with the reality of the practice, to demonstrate that we have to learn to forget what we have been taught. And maybe we get a surprise and we find ourselves with one or two voices happy to be reunited with us, that remind us of what we read about of 1936 or what happened in 1968, and who pressure us to be up to the task. The experience I have described with 15M shows that saving a name does not serve to reduce the distance with people without a specific ideology, quite the opposite. Defining one’s sensitivity serves to galvanize resistances and to magnetise those who are seeking just what we are offering. I repeat that it will be our actions that define us and our anarchist ideas. If we are effective, decisive and practical, our anarchism will be useful and people will adopt the tool without the need for proselytising. If we are charlatans, incapable and abstract, our anarchism will be useless and people will despise it without caring what Tele 5 says.
In our militant activity in housing, defining ourselves as anarchists has never been a problem for us. As I said before, most people do not know the term nor its connotations (at least in the Canary Islands, and this for many years now). People want solutions to the problems that are overwhelming them, and when those solutions are achieved with anarchist weapons, those are the weapons strapped on the waist or held between the teeth, without caring for other considerations. When your social work is efficient and offers positive results, people associate your anarchism with immediacy and realism. That is the basis of everything. When you continue working along that line, presenting yourself as an anarchist can even be an advantage. People who come to your assemblies or who contact you, first seek information on the Internet or ask their neighbors. When your speech and your achievements speak for themselves, and when in each working-class neighborhood there is someone who in turn knows someone whose cousin, sister or sister-in-law received help from your collective to stop their eviction or to get housing, the term anarchist begins to open doors for you. We have reached out to communities that were to be victims of massive eviction, where they received us worse when they thought we were coming from a political party or platform, than when they learned that we were anarchists. Neighbours who looked at us suspiciously when they thought we were from Podemos, have opened the doors of their houses when they discovered that we were those FAGC kids who created squat communities, that we stopped the eviction of entire buildings and that we had been arrested and tortured for it. In the end, the term anarchist can be prestigious and serve as a beautiful letter of introduction. It is only necessary that your actions be up to the task.
Then there is the excuse that the term is old and worn. What words have been more used than equality or freedom, manipulated and directed against their own defenders? Do we renounce them? Do we give them definitively up for lost and deliver them over to power? Socialism, self-management, autonomy and a long et cetera are terms that can also be accused of being anachronistic and outdated. Should we reactualise them with new practices or should we allow our enemies to appropriate them, to reinvent them in twisted ways, or to cast them into the cesspool of history? On the other hand, anarchism is hardly exhausted when its practices are more necessary than ever in neighborhoods and when they take on living forms every time a human community decides to rebel and chooses the libertarian model to organize informally. Perhaps this is the most alarming: after a last decade of political discredit, of disbelief in political parties, we now debate whether to abandon the word anarchist, when perhaps there has been no better moment to exploit it. We allow confidence in the institutions to be rebuilt with recycled political parties, we let patriotism, especially the Spanish one, re-identify the people with the State and all this while we renounce our discourse, beginning with the name. To renounce the term means to give it up so that others may say what it is and what it is not, without any resistance on our part. If you do not vindicate your anarchism nor define it, for fear of being unpopular or misunderstood, others will define it, and define you, at their convenience. And that empty space will be occupied by power, always willing to extend its tentacles into vacant spaces. And if power does not do it, the opportunists will do it. In the Gran Canaria, we once again verified the need to define ourselves as anarchists, without subterfuge or euphemisms, just when we began to intervene on the housing front. At first, out of modesty with regards to our own role, we did not claim as our own the evictions that we stopped or the homes we expropriated. We talked about assemblies and of the people in movement, which was true and very honest on our part, but of the activity of the anarchists, who had prepared and organised the action, we said nothing. It was in this way, due to our abandonment and inhibition, that platforms that had not been in the pickets claimed in the media to have paralysed the evictions of people that they did not know or whom they had refused to help (because they were rent cases, squatters or for personal reasons). This is how we arrived at proposing squatting as if following the model of subcontracting or outsourcing, with us doing the dirty work and running all the risks, while other groups publicly claimed the action and wore the medals. We therefore came to the conclusion that if we did not publicly claim our work as anarchists, it would be others who would do it in our place. And it was not a question of ego or primogeniture, of name and labels; it was a matter of substance. If we were silent, the same work that had been done by mobilising inhabitants of neighbourhoods, organised through assemblies in which migrants, indigents and squatters participated, at the margins of any institution of power, without subsidies, without any kind of institutional assistance, in opposition to the law and private property, based on relations of mutual aid and solidarity from below, would be claimed by people who were no-name representatives of certain political parties, who treated the evicted as “users” who could be charged for the help given, who defended the laws and the rule of law, who fraternised with the police and colluded with institutions of authority and who did not intend to question the foundations of the capitalist world. The same act, to stop an eviction or help in a relocation, could be claimed on the basis of very different premises and values, denouncing or defending totally opposed interests, either assuming a challenge to the System, or concerned to merely repair its excesses. Behind the name, there was much more than the name.
In conclusion, every time we renounce being what we are, hiding it openly, so as not to scandalise, to frighten, to generate alarm, we limit ourselves a little, retreating into the Procrustean bed of convenience, lowering the discourse, moderating the demands, sweetening the content, softening the program. Each time we cede more and more ground, handing over more and more space, until we have nothing left. And so it happens, until one day you look back and discover the sea behind you. What matters are the facts, these are the foundations of the most humble revolutionary shantytown. But the facts need to be represented and vindicated, because otherwise, as I have already explained, they will be absorbed by the enemy. And to represent them, hollow names or straw letters are not enough; we need clear concepts, forceful ideas, sharp terms that cut like axes. What needs to be done is to think them through, otherwise, in the end, for fear, complexes, a bad sense of strategy, we will have handed over the narrative, the meaning, the verb and the word … And we are not strong enough to afford to give anything up.
[I have left all references as they appear in the original essay, translating only when necessary]
1. Yo veo mamíferos.
Mamíferos con nombres extrañísimos.
Han olvidado que son mamíferos
y se creen obispos, fontaneros,
lecheros, diputados. ¿Diputados?
I see mammals
Mammals with the strangest of names.
They have forgotten that they are mammals
and believe themselves to be bishops, plumbers,
milkmen, political representatives.  Representatives?
“Yo veo mamíferos” (Jesús Lizano, Novios, mamíferos y caballitos, 2005).
2. One of the first written records of the term is offered by Aeschylus in The Seven against Thebes (467 BC) where he puts into Antigone’s: “I am not ashamed to act in defiant in opposition to the governors of the city.”
3. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon seems to have been the first to have so defined himself, in his work, What is property? (1840).
4. Quoted by Carlos Díaz in the prologue to La Moral Anarquista by Kropotkin, 1978 edition.
5. R. Rocker, “¿Por qué soy anarquista?” (El Pensamiento de Rudolf Rocker, anthology compiled by Diego Abad de Santillán), 1982.
6. Quoted by L.L. Blaisdell, The Desert Revolution, 1962. In the same work, other recommendations by Magón are cited that insist on the same approach: “Everything is reduced to a mere question of tactics. If from the beginning we call ourselves anarchists, very few will listen to us. […] In order not to have everyone against us, we will continue the same tactic that has given us such good results. We will continue calling ourselves liberals during the revolution, but in reality we will continue spreading anarchy and executing anarchic acts.”
7. “Tarrida, speaking in French with me, used the terms: anarchy without qualification and pure and simple anarchy; in 1908, in the reprinting of his essay, he proposed, following Ferrer (in 1906 or 1907), to renounce the word anarchy, which the public interprets too negatively, and to speak of libertarian socialism.” (M. Nettlau, La anarquía a través de los tiempos, 1933).
8. “Half-hearted anarchist, liberal and not LIBERTARIAN, you demand free exchange for cotton and other trifles and advocate systems of protection for man against women in the circulation of human passions; he cries out against the high barons of capital and wants to rebuild the high barony of man over the vassal woman; philosopher with glasses, sees man through the magnifying glass and the woman by the contrary; thinker affected by myopia, he can not distinguish more than what one eye can see in the present or in the past, and can not discover anything of what is above or in the distance, the prospect of the future: you are a cripple!” (J. Déjacque, De l’être-humain mâle et femelle, carta de mayo de 1857).
9. See: P. Kropotkin, La Gran Revolución (1789-1793), 1909.
10. In the Republic, Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates: “[Among the defects of a young man are] pride, anarchy, debauchery and shamelessness […]. Ah, dear, in such conditions anarchy will penetrate into the families and it will end up even infusing itself in the beasts. The custom is born in the father that his children are his peers, and to fear the children, and the children acquire the habit of being similar to the father, to the point that they neither respect nor fear their parents to attest to their their condition of free men. This is how the foreigner and the citizen are equated, and the citizen and the foreigner; and the same happens with the slave.”
11. J. Bentham, Anarchist fallacies, 1796. This is a libel against the Declaration of the rights of Man and the Citizen approved during the French Revolution.  The title says everything.
12. “The nature of anarchy has not been sufficiently understood. It is certainly a great calamity, but it is less horrible than despotism.” (W. Godwin, Investigación sobre la justicia política, 1793).
13. “In the current state of society, commerce, delivered over to the most complete anarchy, without direction, without facts, without a point of view and without principle, is essentially speculative.” (Proudhon, De la capacidad política de la clase obrera, 1865).
14. M.L. King, A proper sense of priorities, speech given on the 6th of February of 1968.
15. The model can still be found online: